Report - Guardian

130 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005was evidence of under-recording: there had been a mixed or negative police response tothe extra paperwork and even when openly observed by Home Office researchers, somepolice officers failed to record stops. While this initiative by the SSAT, and similarinitiatives, exudes good intentions, the importations of such practices into policeactivities will evidently continue to encounter resistance, be it deliberate or otherwise.Terrorism Stop and SearchDespite assurances made in the Home Office’s Race Equality Impact Assessment thatthe issue of racial discrimination will continue to be monitored, and the emphasis placedupon an assertion that the majority of participants are in favour of ID cards, the topicstill raises concerns in many quarters. This is principally in the light of increasingevidence of problematic use of police powers, in particular the disputed use of thepower to stop and search under s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.S44 came under intense scrutiny in the latter half of 2004 as a result of stops andsearches by police at an arms exhibition in the Docklands area of London during July ofthe same year. Several protesters were stopped by police in the locality of the arms fairand searched for ‘articles connected with terrorism’. Liberty, the civil libertiesorganisation, brought a claim against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on behalfof two affected individuals for judicial review of the powers exercised under s44 on thegrounds that they were being used unlawfully to deter people from protesting. Libertyalleged breaches of Article 5 (liberty), 8 (family and private life), 9 (freedom of thought,conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of peacefulassembly and association).Although it lost its case and the subsequent appeal, Liberty have been grantedpermission to be heard in the House of Lords; the case will be heard by the AppellateCommittee in October 2005. This case continues to highlight the dangers posed by theuse and abuse of the s44 stop and search powers, particularly because there is no need tosuspect that an individual is actually carrying articles to be used in the commission ofterrorism offences.Of particular interest during this period were the contradictory statements that weremade. Notably, as the Guardian reported 347 , Scotland Yard initially denied use of the(Terrorism Act) legislation, but later admitted that it had been used on some occasions.Judicial comment made during the appeal case indicated that disclosure on the part ofthe Metropolitan Police had not been forthcoming. In its conclusions, the Court statedthat it was:“important that if the police are given exceptional powers….becauseof the threats of the safety to the public, they are prepared todemonstrate they are being used with appropriate circumspection.” 348Nonetheless, the lack of sufficient disclosure clearly did not sway the court to considermore rigorous judicial review of the potentially ultra vires exercise of these powers.347 ‘Police can use terror powers on protesters’, Rebecca Allison, The Guardian, November 1, 2003.348 ‘The Queen on the Application of Gillan and Anr v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Anr’,Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 29 th July 2004, paragraph 54.